Movie harry potter and the half blood prince trailer

Dancingweapon said:
I think J.K. Rowling said Dumbledore was actually gay. The director said something about adding something in the film about a love he once had but she didn't agree with it because she said he was gay. Lemme find source lol.
Click to expand...

I heard that too, it's just did he have to go EXTRA gay...and the part about his girlfriend, the only time that would have fitted into the movie is when that stalker crazy bitch and everyone were at the hospital and he said "Young love" or something of the sort...other than that I don't think him bringing up an olg GF would be needed.

I just didn't like how camp he was being compared to how wise and manly he was in the previous ones...a magazine on knitting...come on now.
 
Hitaru said:
I heard that too, it's just did he have to go EXTRA gay...and the part about his girlfriend, the only time that would have fitted into the movie is when that stalker crazy bitch and everyone were at the hospital and he said "Young love" or something of the sort...other than that I don't think him bringing up an olg GF would be needed.

I just didn't like how camp he was being compared to how wise and manly he was in the previous ones...a magazine on knitting...come on now.
Click to expand...

Yeh it did come off a bit strong now you mention it :')

I didn't really notice it until you put it all together haha.
 
In 2007, J.K. Rowling revealed that she belived Dumbledore to be gay, and would imagine he harbored romantic feelings for Gellert Grindelwald. No comment was made upon Grindelwald's sexuality or whether Grindelwald returned his feelings, so the status of the relationship is unknown. Rowling also commented that "this added to Dumbledore's horror when Grindelwald showed himself to be what he was." This love was caused by Dumbledore meeting someone "as brilliant as he was".

There.
 
I watched Lord of the rings...I didn't enjoy it and I won't read the books either because that's not how I do things...I don't know what you're trying to get at with that little part of your post? care to elaborate?
Click to expand...

They're

a. Much better films
and
b. Much better representations of the novels they're based off of.

You'd also be in the extreme minority in not enjoying them, since they were all at the top of the box office, were all nominated for film of the year, and all appear on a number of "best films of all time" lists.

Edit:
I heard that too, it's just did he have to go EXTRA gay...and the part about his girlfriend, the only time that would have fitted into the movie is when that stalker crazy bitch and everyone were at the hospital and he said "Young love" or something of the sort...other than that I don't think him bringing up an olg GF would be needed.

I just didn't like how camp he was being compared to how wise and manly he was in the previous ones...a magazine on knitting...come on now.
Click to expand...

The magazine on knitting is ripped straight from the books. Dumbledore is gay, yes. He's also (not sure if you noticed, the movies don't portray it too well) really weird. I don't see how he was being "extra gay," true love triumphing over all is a central theme of the novel, and one of Dumbledore's mantras.
 
Last edited:
Dancingweapon said:
In 2007, J.K. Rowling revealed that she belived Dumbledore to be gay, and would imagine he harbored romantic feelings for Gellert Grindelwald. No comment was made upon Grindelwald's sexuality or whether Grindelwald returned his feelings, so the status of the relationship is unknown. Rowling also commented that "this added to Dumbledore's horror when Grindelwald showed himself to be what he was." This love was caused by Dumbledore meeting someone "as brilliant as he was".

There.
Click to expand...

I hadn't heard that before. Can you site your source? I'd like to read up on that.
 
Taint said:
She did originally. I'm fairly sure she doesn't anymore, because there's no way in hell I can see her signing off on the past few movies. Everything after Chamber of Secrets has been godawful.
Click to expand...

Well thats your opinion isn't it? I don't think its conclusive that she didn't sign off on later stuff just because you don't like it. If theres actual sources that say that though, then its a different story.
 
Well thats your opinion isn't it? I don't think its conclusive that she didn't sign off on later stuff just because you don't like it. If theres actual sources that say that though, then its a different story.
Click to expand...

There aren't.
However, I think its fairly safe to say she wouldn't let them cut out highly important and significant plot points/characters, completely develop half of the remaining characters wrong, and add completely random plot points for absolutely no reason at all.

I hadn't heard that before. Can you site your source? I'd like to read up on that.
Click to expand...

She stated it at a public book reading for children/Q&A somewhere iirc. Someone asked her where Dumbledore's faith in true love came from, since he obviously has been touched by it (or something along those lines), and Rowling responded by revealing that he was gay and had been in love with Grindelwald.
 
Who cares, when we were reading the book, it was never mentioned. Not till almost two years later that she stated she believes he might be gay.

It doesn't matter. As far as I'm concerned, in the movie he didn't act extra flagrant, and in the series he wasn't. And if he was, it wouldn't be a big deal anyway.


And Taint, I agree with some of what you're saying, but by saying LOTR is a much better adaptaion, you're completely wrong. Lotr left out tons, like Potter, but not many truly major plot points. We still have two movies to go, they'll get them all in there.

Also, here some little tidbits, they got Aragorn completely wrong in the movie! Half the lines givin to the characters in the book were giving to different characters in the movie. The Two Towers was so off it was comical really. Half the fun stuff was left out of the movies..why? Because like Potter they had to cut a lot of the extra stuff to keep the main story rolling.

Did I love Lord of the Rings? Yep, one of my favorite book to film adaptations of all time. They did exceptionally well. They kept the feel, the theme, and central story. Great acting and visual direction.

Potter is doing the same thing.
 
Here is a link to an article about Dumbledore being gay Lin.

http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2...neville-marries-hannah-abbott-and-scores-more

JKR: My truthful answer to you... I always thought of Dumbledore as gay. [ovation.] ... Dumbledore fell in love with Grindelwald, and that that added to his horror when Grindelwald showed himself to be what he was. To an extent, do we say it excused Dumbledore a little more because falling in love can blind us to an extent? But, he met someone as brilliant as he was, and rather like Bellatrix he was very drawn to this brilliant person, and horribly, terribly let down by him. Yeah, that's how i always saw Dumbledore. In fact, recently I was in a script read through for the sixth film, and they had Dumbledore saying a line to Harry early in the script saying I knew a girl once, whose hair... [laughter]. I had to write a little note in the margin and slide it along to the scriptwriter, "Dumbledore's gay!" [laughter] "If I'd known it would make you so happy, I would have announced it years ago!"
 
Thanks, Jereme! ^^
 
And Taint, I agree with some of what you're saying, but by saying LOTR is a much better adaptaion, you're completely wrong. Lotr left out tons, like Potter, but not many truly major plot points. We still have two movies to go, they'll get them all in there.

Also, here some little tidbits, they got Aragorn completely wrong in the movie! Half the lines givin to the characters in the book were giving to different characters in the movie. The Two Towers was so off it was comical really. Half the fun stuff was left out of the movies..why? Because like Potter they had to cut a lot of the extra stuff to keep the main story rolling.

Did I love Lord of the Rings? Yep, one of my favorite book to film adaptations of all time. They did exceptionally well. They kept the feel, the theme, and central story. Great acting and visual direction.

Potter is doing the same thing.
Click to expand...

The difference is that the Potters don't keep the feel, the theme, or the central story, it doesn't have great acting, nor does it have a good visual direction.

It's just trash thrown together every year to put on screen to make Warner Bros. a lot of money.
 
While the books are obviously better, I wouldn't go so far as to call the movies trash.

You said earlier that Hitaru was in the minority for not appreciating LotR, and I think you're kind of the minority in this situation. With the exception of recently released Half Blood Prince (which is already in the top 100, despite that it was only released like a week ago), all 6 other Potter movies are in the top 25 All-Time Worldwide Box Office list for how much they've grossed. There are areas of opportunity with each film adaptation (some more than others), but fact is a hell of a lot of people enjoy them.
 
Taint said:
The difference is that the Potters don't keep the feel, the theme, or the central story, it doesn't have great acting, nor does it have a good visual direction.

It's just trash thrown together every year to put on screen to make Warner Bros. a lot of money.
Click to expand...

How does it not keep the central story? Explain.
 
I didn't really like the lord of the ring films... Didn't keep me interested :S
 
Dancingweapon said:
I didn't really like the lord of the ring films... Didn't keep me interested :S
Click to expand...

I really don't see how that can possibly be true. There are plenty of attractive people in those films, and I know you... >_>
 
Linhjah said:
I really don't see how that can possibly be true. There are plenty of attractive people in those films, and I know you... >_>
Click to expand...

You know me too, but a pretty face really couldn't keep me entertained...I just found it a bit too slow for my liking...and although I've seen all of them I was like Meh D=.
 
It was a joke, Hitaru. Get with the program. D=
 
Lord of the rings had one central story, get the one ring to Mount Doom and destroy it, and the films picked up basically where the prior left off.

Harry Potter on the other hand, the kids go home every year, come back and start a new year, which gives the feel of a new story focused around a different item each time. Sorcerer's stone, Chamber of secrets, goblet or fire, etc etc.

Harry Potter movies could stand on their own as single movies and you wouldn't lose anything from one to the other. LOTR cannot stand as singular movies without losing the story.

The central story of Harry Potter was Voldemort trying to come back, could have been Horcrux, but they barely cover them, and I was surprised how little attention they got in HBP because destroying the remaining ones is the main theme of the last book. But since it's being split into two movies, I'm sure they'll go over them.

I don't expect movies to be like books because they would have to be like 6 hours long lol. But the HBP was the loosest adaption to me so far. Barely touched theme of the Movies title, barely touched Horcrux, and leaving out the fight scene at the end to me was like making the Two Towers and leaving out Helms Deep.
 
Last edited:
Tom Riddle is hiding behind 7 proxies guys
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top